Management Churnover - shocking stats

mike65

Arsene Wenger is about to become the grand old man of the Premier League at 17 years this summer.

As for the rest at their current clubs

Alex Fergerson (gone in a week)
David Moyes (see above)
Tony Pulis June 2006
Roberto Martinez August 2009
Roberto Mancini December 2009
Alan Pardew Dct 2010
Martin Yol June 2011
Sam Allardyce June 2011

are the only ones to have served more than one season at this point. Mancini looks to be a gonner. Pardew is probably for the chop this summer, there is talk about Jol as well. Martinez may yet replace Moyes. Pulis suddenly looks safe again. Big Sam also safe.

Amirani

It's not massively surprising. It's following the pattern of the real world in that people in upper management positions are spending less time in the 1 job. Premier League managerial turnover seems to be a bit excessive though.

GSPfan

What about Mancini?

ArmaniJeanss

Big Sam also says 'worst researched thread ever'.

mike65

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Big Sam also says 'worst researched thread ever'.

I forgot he had taken them up.

I'll tidy it up.

adamski8

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Big Sam also says 'worst researched thread ever'.

im guessing op means seasons in PL also

mike65

Either way its not great! (had Sam not got them up he'd probably have been toast, ditto Pardew)

Oranage2

Football is an ultra competitive multi billion pound industry, not some cotton candy factory.

Success is a must and you'll turn over manager after manager till you get it, I wouldn't feel sorry for the managers either, they know its not going to be some teddy bears picnic!

Pj!

Title should be changed to Management Churnover - (slightly less) shocking stats


It really is shocking though how long managers are lasting these days. What the hell is wrong with the recruitment process? Surely you decide if the appointment is a good one before you hire him, not after half a season. People were famously calling for Fergie to be fired after a couple of years but Utd knew that he had the qualities. It may take time to bed in. There is also a certain randomness to the results of football matches and even the top managers have losing runs. It's unavoidable.

mike65

Man City
Chelsea
Man Utd

the three biggest spenders all likely to be under new management (two for sure), will this shift the Prem Leagues tectonic plates or not? Will Arsenal, Spurs and *cough* Liverpool be able to take advantage of early season mid-firing as the new managers get to grips with their (no doubt changed) squads?

Lovely Bloke

No.

something I just heard about.

Liverpool finished on 58 points in 04/05 and missed out on CL by 3 points.

Now they are on 58 points, and miles off CL football - the gap between the best teams and the also rans is getting bigger.

everdead.ie

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

No.

something I just heard about.

Liverpool finished on 58 points in 04/05 and missed out on CL by 3 points.

Now they are on 58 points, and miles off CL football - the gap between the best teams and the also rans is getting bigger.

This will be the first season a team with 68 points didn't get fourth (I'm assuming Arsenal will get at least 1 more point more likely 6 more)

mike65

In the last 10 years the gap between 4th and 5th has been as big as 10 and a small as 2 points, there is certainly no trend in either direction.

5starpool

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

No.

something I just heard about.

Liverpool finished on 58 points in 04/05 and missed out on CL by 3 points.

Now they are on 58 points, and miles off CL football - the gap between the best teams and the also rans is getting bigger.

In 07/08 Liverpool were 4th with 76 points. Things change. I certainly don't think it'll be around the 60 point mark next season but it does fluctuate more than you'd think.

Fr Tod Umptious

Why does it always have to be about Liverpool

Fr Tod Umptious

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Why does it always have to be about Liverpool

Ask the guys that mention Liverpool in every thread.

carlop

I think Ferguson's success and famous near-sacking might cloud our judgement a little when it comes to the importance of having a manager in for a long number of years.

I think it was Balague or Sid Lowe who made the point that while people were bringing up how Real Madrid had had 24 managers during Ferguson's reign, nobody mentioned that over that period the teams had very similar levels of success, indeed Madrid probably more due to the greater importance of the Champions League.

I'm not advocating that a team should be like Real Madrid (responsible for some of the worst managerial sackings) but I think the English footballing mentality has generally been 'if he's not doing a bad job, let him stay.' On the continent, the feeling is more 'if he's not doing a very good job, get rid of him.' I don't think it's as clear-cut as people think as to which is the better ideology.

Dempsey

carlop wrote: »

I think Ferguson's success and famous near-sacking might cloud our judgement a little when it comes to the importance of having a manager in for a long number of years.

I think it was Balague or Sid Lowe who made the point that while people were bringing up how Real Madrid had had 24 managers during Ferguson's reign, nobody mentioned that over that period the teams had very similar levels of success, indeed Madrid probably more due to the greater importance of the Champions League.

I'm not advocating that a team should be like Real Madrid (responsible for some of the worst managerial sackings) but I think the English footballing mentality has generally been 'if he's not doing a bad job, let him stay.' On the continent, the feeling is more 'if he's not doing a very good job, get rid of him.' I don't think it's as clear-cut as people think as to which is the better ideology.

Compare the level of player investment

gnfnrhead

Asking who the second longest serving manager is (discounting Fergie and Moyes as they are off soon) after Wenger is a good trivia question. Just asked two mates and between them it took nearly 10 minutes to figure out, ended up going through all the teams in their head to try and figure it out.

DazMarz

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Asking who the second longest serving manager is (discounting Fergie and Moyes as they are off soon) after Wenger is a good trivia question. Just asked two mates and between them it took nearly 10 minutes to figure out, ended up going through all the teams in their head to try and figure it out.

Discounting Fergie and Wenger and Moyes... I'm drawing a blank at who the next longest reigning Prem manager is... Pulis, maybe? Or maybe Martinez?

TheDoc

There is a pretty strong arguement for managerial turnover to be honest.

Keeping a manager to a lengthy period can get stale. People get complacent and get into a comfort zone. Player's get an indication if they are a favourite or if they are not, and sometimes that can equate to average to poor players being retained when it would appear obvious there is a serious problem. For the first time in a long time, United's midfield issues might actually be resolved. SAF had serious belief in Anderson for example, where alot of other managers would have cut loose years ago.

Managerial changes bring, well, change. Players are kept on their toes and forced to maintain high levels of work ethics in order to impress. New ideas come into a club, some retained and engrained into the club going forward, others discarded immediately after a change at the helm.

SAF and Wenger are the anomalies, we won't see it happen again I feel. And after reading a number of really informed pieces ( will try find links now) on why managerial turnover is a good thing, it has me a little more convinced. For example, it is nigh on impossible for a manager to remain at a club in Spain for more then 3 years, 5 years is an accomplishment. They just feel the need to keep things fresh and evolve.

Fuzzy_Dunlop

DazMarz wrote: »

Discounting Fergie and Wenger and Moyes... I'm drawing a blank at who the next longest reigning Prem manager is... Pulis, maybe? Or maybe Martinez?

It's Pulis. If him and Martinez leave it will be Allardyce at what, 2 years?

mike65

The answer is in the OP! :rolleyes:

carlop

Dempsey wrote: »

Compare the level of player investment

Obviously Real Madrid are well out on their own here, but it's not as if United were ever shy of spending money. The sheer sh1teness of English football in the late 80s and early 90s simply meant they couldn't attract anyone genuinely top class.

Also, the successful Real Madrid team of the late 80s would have been mostly homegrown (indeed many Real Madrid fans still claim this to be their greatest ever team, despite the fact they never won the European Cup).

mike65

Just lifted from BBC, the trophy winning class of 2011/12

- Premier League winner - Mancini sacked from City
- FA Cup and Champions League winner - Roberto di Matteo sacked from Chelsea
- League Cup winner - Kenny Dalglish sacked from Liverpool

kippy

Oranage2 wrote: »

Football is an ultra competitive multi billion pound industry, not some cotton candy factory.

Success is a must and you'll turn over manager after manager till you get it, I wouldn't feel sorry for the managers either, they know its not going to be some teddy bears picnic!

Well, is that really the best way of achieving success? Manager turnover?

The cost to clubs, in general, of manager upheavel is not cheap, no matter what the club.
Payoffs to the outgoing manager AND all his staff usually, possibly compensation to the club the manager is coming from from him and his selected staff, payments to the new manager AND staff, then the possibility that the manager will want to bring in some of his own players at the very least and let lose some of the existing ones (fair enough this has to happen)

DazMarz

mike65 wrote: »

The answer is in the OP! :rolleyes:

Shows how short my attention span is...

Red Crow

mike65 wrote: »

Just lifted from BBC, the trophy winning class of 2011/12

- Premier League winner - Mancini sacked from City
- FA Cup and Champions League winner - Roberto di Matteo sacked from Chelsea
- League Cup winner - Kenny Dalglish sacked from Liverpool

Mancini spent a fortune, Dalglish spent poorly and the team under performed in the league and was Di Matteo ever in charge at Chelsea? He got way too much credit for very little work and his previous record is quite poor at WBA.